SwitchBlade Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 Pretty much all American news channels are biased. I prefer BBC. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL
B5C Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 I dont know why people hate fox news? Maybe because us Conservatives have a channel we can trust?
Cantousent Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 One thing that I find reassuring, however, is that some of the more liberal folks are actually taking a stand against this odious device. The idea that the best way to address a point of view is to silence the speaker is simply wrong. It would be just as wrong for a conservative group to sell some sort of device to block a so-called "liberal" station. I don't doubt that could happen. Not at all. ...And, while he might not be quite so vehement about it, I've no doubt taks would have essentially the same stance in that case as he does now. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Meshugger Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 I dont know why people hate fox news? Maybe because us Conservatives have a channel we can trust? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No matter what ideological ideas, a news channel should not spin facts (blending facts with opinion) for their own gain. What's the point of a news channel telling you only the news you want to hear? Beside from spreading ignorance, i dunno... "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
B5C Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 No matter what ideological ideas, a news channel should not spin facts (blending facts with opinion) for their own gain. What's the point of a news channel telling you only the news you want to hear? Beside from spreading ignorance, i dunno... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Most of the shows on FOX are opinionated shows. You know the host will be a little bias. The Fox Report and the every half hour news breaks are not bias.
Plooby Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 @ Conspiracy... Your *teachers* swear by FoxNews? I taught High School and there were maybe only two conservative teachers in the whole school... and they tuaght math and English. @ Dakoth... I am going to agree with everything that you say, without even reading it, becuase anyone with a Farscape tag in thier signature san say just about anything and be completely correct. :D
sawyl Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 I dont know why people hate fox news? Maybe because us Conservatives have a channel we can trust? You know, if there's only one news source in America that you can "trust," maybe there's some small failing in your ideology. Just a thought. Unfortunately with the case of Rather we see the bias of the network come through in the bias of their reporter. Yes, you could be right. (We'll never really know.) But I think it was more a case of "Wow, we have an inside scoop that no one else does! AIR IT AIR IT!". And since everyone in the business is in such a hurry to gain more viewers and make an extra buck, no one bothers to fact-check thoroughly anymore. Thing is, Dan Rather always hated Bush, so I think it was more of a personal agenda for Rather than CBS. *Shrugs* Pretty much all my teachers swear by Fox news, I'm not impressed. Maybe I'll get one of those blockers for my history teacher's set... Where do you go to school, you poor thing? The idea that the best way to address a point of view is to silence the speaker is simply wrong. It would be just as wrong for a conservative group to sell some sort of device to block a so-called "liberal" station. I think you're missing the point. This "device" is a JOKE to parody both the right-wing ideologues and left-wing whiners at the same time. HA HA HA. Stop treating it so seriously.
Dakoth Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Yes, you could be right. (We'll never really know.) But I think it was more a case of "Wow, we have an inside scoop that no one else does! AIR IT AIR IT!". And since everyone in the business is in such a hurry to gain more viewers and make an extra buck, no one bothers to fact-check thoroughly anymore. Thing is, Dan Rather always hated Bush, so I think it was more of a personal agenda for Rather than CBS. I agree some what although I see it more like this, oh man Rather got the scoop on Bush being underhanded air it, air it, air it. Now look at it if Fox would have gotten the scoop. Would they have aired it with out more checking into it? I think they wouldn't have mostly because yes of the right wing slant Fox tends to have. Now if you want to bash a right wing conservative that can be out there why not hit us conservatives up about oh I don't know say Rush Limbaugh. P.S. Long live Farscape
Cantousent Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 It is funny that liberals rail against Limbaugh but conservatives use the same argument... it's just a joke. Frankly, I doubt it's a joke. ...Or, to put it another way, it's only a joke because it simply won't work. If it were feasible, then I have no doubt many of the folks on this board would pursue it. Some of the crazies undoubtedly do take it seriously. Personally, it looks like a great scheme to fleece a few nutjobs. On the other hand, I am surrounded by folks who truly hate George W. Bush. These folks, like the diehard Clinton haters before them, find no accusation too outrageous and know no shame. I watch Fox news myself. I watch Neil Cavuto and Brit Hume daily if I get the chance. That's the extent of my television of any sort. (well, except for what the wife wants to watch.) When it comes to written news, however, I read, almost exclusively, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC. I find that they all pretty much say the same things, only with a different slant. Nevertheless, to get back to the joke idea... *shrug* It might be a joke, but it's said through gritted teeth and with a snarl. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
B5C Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Yes, you could be right. (We'll never really know.) But I think it was more a case of "Wow, we have an inside scoop that no one else does! AIR IT AIR IT!". And since everyone in the business is in such a hurry to gain more viewers and make an extra buck, no one bothers to fact-check thoroughly anymore. Thing is, Dan Rather always hated Bush, so I think it was more of a personal agenda for Rather than CBS. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, the Rather story is bias because Rather (D) never want to believe those were fakes. After been proved they have been fakes. Rather still believed the story is real.
Dakoth Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 No, the Rather story is bias because Rather (D) never want to believe those were fakes. After been proved they have been fakes. Rather still believed the story is real. That picture said it all B5C even though Rather couldn't see the tree's for the forrest someone from CBS corporate should have stepped in and made them investigate more. That story didn't just make Rather look bad it made CBS look bad because it showed either one they don't have control over what an obviously biased newscaster does on their news program, or that they let their biased get in the way and let a story run for political and monetary reasons. What you have to relise is Rather is a representative of CBS by default and he was running a potentially damning story not against just any jo blow but the President of the United States I would think CBS would want to make damn sure the allegations were true.
B5C Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 More media bias: ABC put out a story that ABC news is looking for military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Inauguration Day. The real artical has been taken down. The orginal source: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Inauguration/...d=425110&page=1 A blogger made a copy of the ABC artical: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/story.htm
Judge Hades Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Dan Rather should have been fired for such sloppy journalistic work.
KOTORFanactic Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 So, who would win? Raven(TeenTitans) or O'Reily(Fox News) Place your bets now! Just a little something I found browsing the internet.
taks Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Dan Rather should have been fired for such sloppy journalistic work. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he really has been fired... "stepping down" is just the network's way of doing it without really admitting they screwed up... kind of like when executives leave some coporation, they're always listed as "moving on to other interests." his ratings have been floundering lately anyway, and this was a perfect excuse to replace him. taks comrade taks... just because.
tjabour Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Things happen and people see it differently. People watch the news channel that they fell more comfortable with. WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG DEAL? I was pissed by some of the things that I read, and I agreed with some of the other things for both sides. Here's an concept: CNN... News for people who don't like there news right-wing. FOX...News for people who don't like their news left-wing. People watch who they feel more comfortable with and it can be proven that both have a bias, but that won't change anytime soon. However, please refrain from how you handle this. All it does is piss people off when you them that what they watch is "lies" and you lose any chance of convincing them of your point of view. If you aren't trying to actually accomplish something with your banter and you are just venting your anger then think about the fact that you are only making it worse for your side in the end. So please try to show a little respect and courtesy b/c an inability to see how both sides are flawed yet far from any real conspiracy shows your inability to be objective...OR HOW BIAS YOU ARE.
sawyl Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Now if you want to bash a right wing conservative that can be out there why not hit us conservatives up about oh I don't know say Rush Limbaugh. Dan Rather should have been fired for such sloppy journalistic work. he really has been fired... "stepping down" is just the network's way of doing it without really admitting they screwed up... kind of like when executives leave some coporation, they're always listed as "moving on to other interests." his ratings have been floundering lately anyway, and this was a perfect excuse to replace him. True. No, the Rather story is bias because Rather (D) never want to believe those were fakes. After been proved they have been fakes. Rather still believed the story is real. oh, the story itself is real...but yes, the memos were not. ABC put out a story that ABC news is looking for military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Inauguration Day. Um, I hate to ask, but how is this media bias? It's showing the actual cost of war. On the other hand, I am surrounded by folks who truly hate George W. Bush. These folks, like the diehard Clinton haters before them, find no accusation too outrageous and know no shame. I may loathe Bush, but I think the claim that he's the next Hitler is rather outrageous. some pretty sweet cartoons, by the way...
random evil guy Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Dan Rather should have been fired for such sloppy journalistic work. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he really has been fired... "stepping down" is just the network's way of doing it without really admitting they screwed up... kind of like when executives leave some coporation, they're always listed as "moving on to other interests." his ratings have been floundering lately anyway, and this was a perfect excuse to replace him. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> can you prove this claim or not: "fox, btw, has more democratic guests than republican. a factoid that few seem to care about." http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0701-05.htm
Dakoth Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 ABC put out a story that ABC news is looking for military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Inauguration Day. Um, I hate to ask, but how is this media bias? It's showing the actual cost of war. It shows they have an agenda and that is to make Bush look bad, after every inaguration there are parties both sides do this when they win the election. Now how does that make Bush look when the head lines show him going to all the parties when one of the major news networks runs a story on the funerals of the casualties. The sad matter is if it was just coinsidence no one would think twice but that seemed a tactical move by ABC with the express intent to make Bush look bad.
Oerwinde Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2663486 Clip of Fox News from the Inauguration where Bush is criticized and the anchor defends him every step of the way. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
sawyl Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 It shows they have an agenda and that is to make Bush look bad, after every inaguration there are parties both sides do this when they win the election. Now how does that make Bush look when the head lines show him going to all the parties when one of the major news networks runs a story on the funerals of the casualties. The sad matter is if it was just coinsidence no one would think twice but that seemed a tactical move by ABC with the express intent to make Bush look bad. I think this is a perfectly fair juxtaposition. The White House is spending a disgusting amount of money on lavish parties while the troops in Iraq don't have body armor. Bush should look bad.
Dakoth Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 I think this is a perfectly fair juxtaposition. The White House is spending a disgusting amount of money on lavish parties while the troops in Iraq don't have body armor. Bush should look bad. As should the democrats when they do the same and a thing like Somalia happens on their watch. The news is about the facts and not whos opinion you can sway to your "side". If they want to run the story fine but since the inaguration parties really have nothing to do with them leave them out of it.
sawyl Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 As should the democrats when they do the same and a thing like Somalia happens on their watch. Oh, no--I completely agree with you. It's horrible when any politician does it, Republican or Democrat.
mkreku Posted January 22, 2005 Author Posted January 22, 2005 http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2663486 Clip of Fox News from the Inauguration where Bush is criticized and the anchor defends him every step of the way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hahaha, that was damn funny! That right wing FOX reporter gets uglier and uglier the more angry she gets. At the end of the clip she looks like a Medusa. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
Kaftan Barlast Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 democrats when they do the same <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, the thing is I have yet too se any reporter from what you would call "leftie" network, argue with a guest when she states unwelcome facts. Its just the kind of unproffessional bullying that FOXnews is known for. And another thing, that this is an example of; when you see a "leftie" critizise the goverment they do it proper backup by facts, but when the "righties" go after the lefts- they do it with nothing but emtpy rethorics. example: left "Bush spends 40 million dollars on his inaugeration party when soldiers in Iraq lack proper equipment" right "But the ceremony was for celebrating democracy and freedom, and you cant say democracy and freedom is bad." edit: its 40000000, not 40. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now